Tag Archives: Conservatives

A new study by Malka, Soto, Cohen, and Miller (2010) suggests that Christianity, and religiosity more generally, leads to political conservatism, which in turn leads to opposition to “social welfare.” On the other hand, these same religious scruples relate to a desire to help those less fortunate. These two pathways, the authors suggest, might be accounted for by “competing influences rooted in a combination of personality processes and contextual-discursive surroundings.” I wonder then, if the House Republicans’ desire to repeal the health-care bill reflects a belief that Christ would do the same thing in the same situation (contextual-discursive surroundings), or if they are just power-hungry, with eyes on the White House (personality processes)?

To steal a line from Peter Griffin of Family Guy, the Republicans “really grind my gears!” The Republicans aren’t the only ones that rub me the wrong way when it comes to health care, of course. Insurance companies like Aetna, specifically, do too. While the previsions of the new health-care bill slowly come into effect, Aetna and other insurance providers do all they can to take advantage of needy consumers. In some cases, they do so by jacking-up premiums. Other times, they do it by denying coverage to pregnant women, because, apparently, an unknown conception occurring a week before coverage begins is a “preexisting condition.” While the new health-care bill will eventually prevent similar drops due to “preexisting conditions,” the House Republicans have promised to do all they can to let the insurance companies continue to act like money-lusting hornswogglers. That’s right. The Republicans with their “Christian conservative values” seem to be taking advantage of the once Democratic majority’s dying quivers in an attempt to kill the bill’s remaining provisions and implement their own version of a health-care bill designed simply to add cash to the already-lined pocks of the insurance companies. While there is little hope for the Republicans evil plan to do so in the short term, due to the Democratic Senate Majority and President Obama’s veto pen, the fact that they are trying proves one thing: the Republicans are a bunch of hypocritical dicks interested more in defeating Obama in a 2012 election than helping the less fortunate receive health care. As f’ed up as their actions might be, I bet if you asked the Republicans, they would tell you that they are just doing what Christ would do.

By, Adam K. FettermanIt is Election Day 2010 and there are a variety of motivations people have to vote and how to vote. Many are angry and some are anxious and uneasy, according to Holly Bailey. Many conservative voters are angry at the Democrat controlled house and senate. Many liberals are upset about the lack of hope and change promised to them by President Barack Obama, regardless of how many of his promises he has acted on. Regardless of party, many voters are basically upset with the state of the country. For these reasons, people have a motivation to vote and to vote in a certain way. However, these may not be the only things influencing the way they vote.

According to research by Abraham Rutchick (2010), the place in which one votes can have a significant effect on the way one votes. What he found was that when voting in a church or exposed to Christian imagery, people tend to vote more conservatively. For example, people voting in a church tended to vote for conservative candidates and ban same-sex marriages, than those voting in secular locations (Rutchick, 2010). This is a very important finding. Churches are particularly popular polling locations. It has always seemed odd to vote in churches, but until now there has been no reason to not vote in churches. They are in the communities and can hold a lot of people. However, given the evidence of the influence, it seems that voting should be conducted in secular locations, away from the biasing influence of the churches. If not for this reason, then at least of the separation of church and state, even if the reasons are not apparent.

Despite resistance from conservatives, the Senate has recently extended unemployment benefits for Americans without jobs. Political commentator and actor Ben Stein weighed in on the issue of unemployment in his article in the The American Spectator. Stein sums up much of the conservative resistance to providing benefits for the unemployed by arguing that the recession has generally only hit those who, “have poor work habits and poor personalities” while hardworking Americans have been unaffected by joblessness because “they lacked prudence and lived in a dream world.” He argues that those who aren’t suffering the ill effects of the recession were saved because they were sensible with their savings and “productive workers with real skills and real ability to get along are… the last fired and the first hired.” Stein’s highly offensive statements to the nearly 15 million Americans who are unemployed exemplifies the well-researched psychology theory of system justification. According to system justification, people rationalize the status quo by adopting ideology or using stereotypes to reinforce that the system is just and legitimate. Stein argues that only those with poor work habits are unemployed and thus, they deserve it.

Past research on the topic has shown that people tend to use stereotypes to differentiate high and low status groups more when there is a threat present. Stein builds to his argument by discussing how the recession has hit particularly close to home for him with his friends and neighbors and that he is “seeing real desperation.” For Stein, the threat of a recession is so scary that he uses stereotypes about the unemployed to reinforce his just-world belief that bad things happen to bad people and good people (like him) will continue to do just fine. Unfortunately, Stein uses these attitudes not only to justify the state of the economy for himself but also serves to reinforce negative class stereotypes for all his readers.

In the middle of the 20th century, a group of researchers pronounced political ideology dead. They argued that most individuals do not know enough about their beliefs to have an ideology. While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to this claim, the emergence of heated Tea Party protests and the overall Tea Party movement indicates that political ideology is alive and well. Social psychological research also backs up this claim (Jost, Nosek, & Gosling, 2008). Political psychologist John Jost and his colleagues have found numerous differences between those that have conservative and liberal ideologies, even though they may not be aware of it.

The strongest differences concern system justification and change (Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Jost et al., 2008). Specifically, conservatives are more likely to support maintaining the status quo or hold stronger system-justifying attitudes. For example, a New York Times/CBS News poll indicates that the Tea Party supporters are upset about the amount of support that the current United States administration is giving to minorities and lower social classes. This is quite reflective of what Jost and his colleagues describe in their research on system justification. As far as change goes, conservatives are less likely to be supportive of change. This is quite evident in the Tea Party, as seen in the following quote from Sarah Palin (a voice supported by many in the Tea Party movement): “Is this what their ‘change’ is all about? I want to tell ‘em, Nah, we’ll keep clinging to our Constitution and our guns and religion — and you can keep the change.” To conclude, while individuals may not fully understand their ideologies, humans are indeed “ideological animals”, as Jost and Hunyady (2005) conclude.

In the wake of the recent signing of the health care bill Democratic members of Congress who supported the bill have been subject to death threats and their offices and homes have been vandalized. Some blame public figures of the conservative movement like Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck for the frenzy over health care reform. Sarah Palin published the names of Democrats who voted for the bill from former Republican districts and told her followers “Commonsense Conservatives & lovers of America: ‘Don’t Retreat, Instead – RELOAD!” Glenn Beck spent months bashing the bill on his show saying it [the bill] “is the end of America as you know it.” The attitudes Palin and Beck hold about reform and the current President are shared by others and seem to be held with strong moral conviction.

Of the many facets of attitudes, level of moral conviction is thought to be highly influential in both our social and political environments. In a review of the literature about these so-called ‘moral mandates’ Skitka (2010) highlighted the consequences associated with moral convictions showing that they are associated with intolerance for dissent, trouble resolving conflicts, strong positive and negative emotion, believing that valued ends justify violent means, and interestingly greater involvement in politics. Skitka argues that moral conviction isn’t necessarily a bad thing as it can be a protective force against “malevolent authorities.” However, there are still extreme negative consequences including the rejection of the rule of law and use of violent protest and terrorism. Skitka’s review applies quite well to the conservative backlash against American health care reform although conservatives are certainly not the only group to hold these types of attitudes or act on them. What is clear is that having strong moral convictions involves walking a dangerous line in which one’s beliefs and working towards them come very close to threatening others and the democratic process itself. In the end we are all responsible for our own actions; however, it is imperative that those in the public eye recognize the power they have and use it responsibly to ensure that freedom of speech is preserved and the rule of law is respected. Dissent, debate, thoughtful argument, and compromise are powerful tools with which to maintain a healthy, safe, and effective political climate.

The recent Conservative pre-election poster campaign ‘I’ve never voted Tory before…’ provides an interesting example of the three variables that interact in the persuasion process. That is, the communicator (source), the communication (message) and the audience (receiver) (Duck, Hogg & Terry, 2000).

Showing Ian the mechanic from Congleton in the poster immediately tells us that the target audience is men who are manual workers. The slogan is ‘I’ve never voted Tory before…’ also tells us that this cohort does not typically vote Tory. So how are the Tories attempting to persuade this group of non-traditional Tory voters?

Social psychologists have found that people are more likely to be influenced by communicators who are attractive (Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969) good communicators (Miller et al., 1976) and by peers and others who are similar (Triandis, 1971). Arguably Ian is attractive, similar to the target audience and by the written words, he communicates well. These variables on their own however, are unlikely to be persuasive enough to change the attitude of the target audience without a strong message.

Allyn & Festinger, (1961) suggest that simple messages are more effective than complex ones. The message being communicated by the poster can be read as – The Tories are the party to sort out the economy and therefore provide work. What is also interesting is how fear can be used to as a tool to persuade (Leventhal et al., 1965). Implied also in the message here is that not voting Tory risks leaving the economy in a mess and threatening jobs. The effectiveness of such subtle forms of persuasion however, will be measured in the ballot box.

In the States, the Obama administration and Fox News Channel have recently “declared war.” The argument is essentially that the “talk-radio format” of the evening commentary programs undercuts the network’s credibility as a news organization and the Obama administration has indicated they will not interact with the network on this level. And yet, Fox News is enjoying some of its highest ratings ever.

A recent study in the European Journal of Personality may shed some light on the popularity of the network. The evening programs are usually highly critical of the administration and popular with individuals who identify with the political right. According to Jugert et al., there are several personality constructs that relate to right wing authoritarianism (RWA): social conformity and a cognitive style reflecting a need for personal structure.

This ties in with Swedish psychologist Catarina Kinnvall’s suggestion that increasing globalization has led people to feel “ontologically insecure” and thus more likely to identify with collective ideologies that answer to this feeling of insecurity. Two primary examples she cites are religion and nationalism.

The question then is whether the increasing realities of globalization and the continual breaking down of traditional “borders” — through commerce and technology, for example — are leading individuals to feel less existentially secure and thus more in need of more rigid ideologies, and if — for those in the States, at least — right-wing conservatism is ready to answer this call.